MWiF Map Review - Pacific Islands

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

ORIGINAL: abj9562

ORIGINAL: Froonp



If there are islands that we want to keep (for the beauty) on the WiF map, but that we think are adding too much of an Air Base to the game, the simplest solution is to make this island a mountain hex.

This is also the most logical, because the only reason I can think of, that would lead to an island not having an airfield built on it, is that it is too mountainous.

I think of the Bonin island while writing this, because I'm currently preparing a map showing Japan, plus the Bonin, plus the Marianas, from Korea to Marcus Island. Should be ready for me to upload here soon.

True mountainous land would be a reason but there are a host of other geological reasons also. You dont just say here is some flat land of dimensions X by Y now build an airfield. Other reasons are water sources, ports, shoals, barriers, and transfer of supplies to the island. There were a host of reasons why many islands went undefended because of their tactical and strategic unimportance. However in a game play balance is the ultimate reason to include or not include a land mass etc... I am beginning to worry that all these changes with no testing could affect the game play. Please do some game testing on these changes as this will alleviate the ground swelling of tension in the community.

CWiF also had all these Islands in the Pacific in the very same scale. CWiF was tested and played quite a lot in the past and the play balance was fine and the Pacific theater a joy to play.

Lars

Thank you for your explanation. While I have played WiF I have never played CWiF. However I understand that Steve is caught betweeen replicating WiF FE as he has stated clearly many times and using the CWiF code as a base and due to the necessities of programming must combine these. If that is the only thing changing then fine. However I understand that city placements which affects ranges and stacking in China has occurred and in other map areas. That alone could change the strategic objectives and game flow. If the same thing happens in the Pacific then what? I think Steve and Patrice have done a good job of trying to integrate them. I just want to know what level of regression testing is occurring and what the effect of all these changes is going to be?

[Froonp]

Here is what the Japan area looks like. It is 48% the original size, so if you'd like close up, just ask, and I'll post them.

Let me also say that I am only drawing coastlines to better see the map, and to better review it. Those coastlines are not the final ones that the Artis will do.

Let me also say that, except for the names (and the curved borders in the sea), I added nothing to this map, it is as this since the old CWiF days (except for the coastlines).

Now, for the modifications I'd make to it to make it better :

- I'd remove the clear terrain island for which I did not drew the coastlines, south of Japan (because it is never on the maps I check).
- I'd push the little island that is east of Amani Island (north of Okinawa) 1 hex northeast.
- Maybe I'd make 1-2 hexes in the Bonin Islands be Mountains terrain Kita Iwo & Nishi-No Shima, but this would need to be checked on precise maps, what I did not do.

Note : I believe "Retto" means "Group of Islands" in Japanese. I wonder if "Shima" and "Jima" have the same meaning, which I suspect to be something like "volcaneous mountains island", or simply "mountain isles".

[Froonp]

Let me also say that, except for the names (and the curved borders in the sea), I added nothing to this map, it is as this since the old CWiF days (except for the coastlines).

Well, I'm an ugly liar, because I did modify something (I forgot, because I made this at start) :

- Iwo Jima was wrongly placed on the original CWiF / MWiF map. In reality it is the island in the southern Bonin. The Island marked Iwo Jima is Okinotori Shima instead. I made this modification on the above map.

[Froonp]

Please refresh my memory: What is the difference in stacking limits?
(That is, European map scale versus Pacific map scale.)

There is none.
But if there is 1 extra island in one place, this island is an extra air base.
That said, none of the extra islands have any port of city, and some are mountain hexes (no planes here).

[mlees]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Please refresh my memory: What is the difference in stacking limits?
(That is, European map scale versus Pacific map scale.)

There is none.
But if there is 1 extra island in one place, this island is an extra air base.
That said, none of the extra islands have any port of city, and some are mountain hexes (no planes here).

Yup. Thanks. Just downloaded and looked at Raw v7 just now.

I also found out that Engineers increase the stacking limit by one, as well! Wow! Didn't know that! Hmmm....

[Peter Stauffenberg]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Note : I believe "Retto" means "Group of Islands" in Japanese. I wonder if "Shima" and "Jima" have the same meaning, which I suspect to be something like "volcaneous mountains island", or simply "mountain isles".

Great looking map as usual. [:)]

Look at this link for meaning of Japanese names:
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/japanlan.htm

You're right that Shima and Jima mean island.

You're right that retto means archipelago (group of islands). Look here for details:
http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/wi ... ap1-1.html

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Note : I believe "Retto" means "Group of Islands" in Japanese. I wonder if "Shima" and "Jima" have the same meaning, which I suspect to be something like "volcaneous mountains island", or simply "mountain isles".

Great looking map as usual. [:)]

Look at this link for meaning of Japanese names:
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/japanlan.htm

You're right that Shima and Jima mean island.

You're right that retto means archipelago (group of islands). Look here for details:
http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/wi ... ap1-1.html

Right for the translations

retto = Flock of Islands, Archipelago

Shima/Jima = Island (The Character means literally: "Birds on a Rock")

And, Patrice: I really like the Map!

Regards

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It's an interesting point, but even though the sea areas are now larger, the movement rates are now unified (ie higher in the Pacific than they were). Anyone got an analysis of how this pans out?

I guess playtesting will reveal any major bugs.

Cheers, Neilster

I am not sure what you mean here by 'higher'.

For naval movement, MWIF matches WIF FE exactly.

It is only the air movement costs that might change, and Patrice has been reporting on that from time to time, for different sections of the Pacific.

There are mimimal changes to land movement too, where it is/was possible to step from island to island using marines.

Err...I forgot about naval movement. Not too bright when we're considering the Pacific.

I was thinking about land movement but I haven't played WiF in so long I forget a lot of the rules. I thought moving a hex on the pacific map in WiF costs 2MP at least? So what I meant by "higher" is that at the unified scale a 4MP unit can move 4 hexes instead of 2.

So what of this naval movement conundrum? Isn't naval movement artificially generous in the Pacific if the sea areas are now much bigger? I understand what you said about not changing them but I'm interested in what you have to say. Surely this also came up in CWiF testing.

Cheeers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
...

So what of this naval movement conundrum? Isn't naval movement artificially generous in the Pacific if the sea areas are now much bigger? I understand what you said about not changing them but I'm interested in what you have to say. Surely this also came up in CWiF testing.

Cheeers, Neilster

How ADG decided on sea areas is beyond my knowledge. I am sure it was difficult to decide tough travel over the open ocean must have been easier than in close to shore. The decision to use both range and movement points for naval units clearly came about because using just 1 number wasn't getting the job done. No matter what you think about it as a design decision, this is the core element of the naval movement system. From that and the placement in a sea box number driving search roles, surprise, and general capabilities of a naval unit when at sea, comes second. Only then do you have the ability to make decisions about where to draw the sea areas - how many and the boundaries between them. Almost every boundary would be a potential source of contentious argument - so I do not want to touch them with a ten foot pole.

[c92nichj]

I would prefer if the number of airbases close to Japan on Islands was similiar to the number on the WIFFE map.
The solution with making the other islands having mountain terrain seems to be a good solution.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

I would prefer if the number of airbases close to Japan on Islands was similiar to the number on the WIFFE map.
The solution with making the other islands having mountain terrain seems to be a good solution.

Please note also that, while there are more islands in the Sea south of Japan, most of those islands are hard for the Allies to supply (need the allies to be masters of the China Sea, which if is true, pretty means that Japan is already dead now). The only islands which are "easy" to put in supply (needing supply from the Marianas Sea Zone only) are those who are on the Sea Zone boundary between the Marianas Sea Zone and the China Sea Sea Zone.
There are 4 of them now (MWiF), and there were 3 before (WiF FE).
The 4 we have now are at ranges 12-20 from Tokyo.
The 3 we had before are at ranges 6-10 from Tokyo.
So, while there are more, they are much far away. Indeed they are placed at realistic distances.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster
...

So what of this naval movement conundrum? Isn't naval movement artificially generous in the Pacific if the sea areas are now much bigger? I understand what you said about not changing them but I'm interested in what you have to say. Surely this also came up in CWiF testing.

Cheeers, Neilster

How ADG decided on sea areas is beyond my knowledge. I am sure it was difficult to decide tough travel over the open ocean must have been easier than in close to shore. The decision to use both range and movement points for naval units clearly came about because using just 1 number wasn't getting the job done. No matter what you think about it as a design decision, this is the core element of the naval movement system. From that and the placement in a sea box number driving search roles, surprise, and general capabilities of a naval unit when at sea, comes second. Only then do you have the ability to make decisions about where to draw the sea areas - how many and the boundaries between them. Almost every boundary would be a potential source of contentious argument - so I do not want to touch them with a ten foot pole.

Oh, I didn't have an opinion about the design decision. I was labouring under a misconception. The CWiF map below indicates that everything should be pretty hunky dorey.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

This is a substantial change. It will require an additional 3 US convoys to ship the Venezuela oil home and the USA to begin with does not have three spare convoys so they will lose an oil each turn to begin with in the Global war.

The CW also will not be able to ship Venezuela oil to be saved in Canada without the commitment of adiitional convoys in the Gulf of Mexico, an added burden on the CW in the Global war since the CW does not have those extra convoys available to begin with.

Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

This is a substantial change. It will require an additional 3 US convoys to ship the Venezuela oil home and the USA to begin with does not have three spare convoys so they will lose an oil each turn to begin with in the Global war.

The CW also will not be able to ship Venezuela oil to be saved in Canada without the commitment of adiitional convoys in the Gulf of Mexico, an added burden on the CW in the Global war since the CW does not have those extra convoys available to begin with.

Lars

No.

The Carribean still connects Venezeula to the Norfolk (for example). The Gulf of Mexico, as defined in America in Flames (which is why I made the change in the first place) stops at Key west, Havana, and Honduras. This makes no impostion on the USA or the CW for additional convoys to reach Venezeula.

[lomyrin]

Looking again at the CWiF maps, you are correct and I was in error about the Caribbean.

I did not think of the Caribbean as extending north of the Bahamas or the Antilles Island chain, but it indeed does in CWiF.

Lars

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The only change I have made for MWIF, from the map you showed, has been to make the Gulf of Mexico a separate sea area. Previously, it had been part of the Carribean Sea.

The Gulf of Mexico exists in WiF FE since the America Map appeared, in 1998.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Looking again at the CWiF maps, you are correct and I was in error about the Caribbean.

I did not think of the Caribbean as extending north of the Bahamas or the Antilles Island chain, but it indeed does in CWiF.

Lars

I bet the people in Norfolk would be surprised to think of the ocean waves to their immediate southeast as the Caribbean.

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Please note also that, while there are more islands in the Sea south of Japan, most of those islands are hard for the Allies to supply (need the allies to be masters of the China Sea, which if is true, pretty means that Japan is already dead now). The only islands which are "easy" to put in supply (needing supply from the Marianas Sea Zone only) are those who are on the Sea Zone boundary between the Marianas Sea Zone and the China Sea Sea Zone.
There are 4 of them now (MWiF), and there were 3 before (WiF FE).
The 4 we have now are at ranges 12-20 from Tokyo.
The 3 we had before are at ranges 6-10 from Tokyo.
So, while there are more, they are much far away. Indeed they are placed at realistic distances.

As long as they're close enough for strat bombers & (maybe) escorting fighters.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Please note also that, while there are more islands in the Sea south of Japan, most of those islands are hard for the Allies to supply (need the allies to be masters of the China Sea, which if is true, pretty means that Japan is already dead now). The only islands which are "easy" to put in supply (needing supply from the Marianas Sea Zone only) are those who are on the Sea Zone boundary between the Marianas Sea Zone and the China Sea Sea Zone.
There are 4 of them now (MWiF), and there were 3 before (WiF FE).
The 4 we have now are at ranges 12-20 from Tokyo.
The 3 we had before are at ranges 6-10 from Tokyo.
So, while there are more, they are much far away. Indeed they are placed at realistic distances.

As long as they're close enough for strat bombers & (maybe) escorting fighters.

At 12 hexes away, only a few of the USA fighters can reach Tokyo from the Bonins islands. Most of the USA bombers can but they would have to fly at extended range.